Appraisal of Urban Trees Using Twelve Valuation Formulas and Two Appraiser Groups

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. AEPJP (Asociación Española de Parques y Jardines Públicos, ES)

   . 2007. Norma Granada. Método para valoración de árboles y arbustos ornamentales, tercera edición. Madrid, Spain. 53 pp.
2. ↵
   1. Bernatzky, A.

   1978. Tree ecology and preservation. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, New York, U.S.
3. ↵
   1. Caballer, V.

   1999. Valoración de Árboles. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid, Spain. 247 pp.
4. ↵
   1. Chueca, J.

   2001. La Norma Granada: Un método de valoración económica de los árboles ornamentales. Accessed 22 October 2007. <www.drac.com/pers/chueca/Granada.htm>
5. ↵
   1. Conover, W.

   1999. Practical nonparametric statistics, third edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, New York, U.S. 584 pp.
6. ↵
   1. Contato-Carol,
   2. M.L.,
   3. E. Ayuga-Tellez, and
   4. M.A. Grande-Ortiz

   . 2008. A comparative analysis of methods for the valuation of urban trees in Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Spanish Journal Agriculture Research 6:314–352.

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. K. Wenger

   1. Cordell, H.,
   2. L. Anderson,
   3. C. Berisford,
   4. Y. Berisfrod,
   5. L. Biles,
   6. P. Black, and
   7. R. DeGraaf, et al.

   1984. Urban Forestry, Section 16. In: K. Wenger. Forestry Handbook. Washington, second edition. Wiley Interscience 887–983 pp.
8. ↵
   1. CTLA (Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers)

   . 2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal, ninth edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S. 143 pp.
9. ↵
   1. Cullen, S.

   2005. Tree appraisal: Chronology of North American industry guidance. Journal of Arboriculture 31:157–162.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Cullen, S.

    2007. Putting a value on trees—CTLA guidance and methods. Arboricultural Journal 30:21-43.

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Dobbs, C.,
    2. F. Escobedo, and
    3. W.C. Zipperer

    . 2011. A framework for developing urban forest ecosystem services and goods indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning 99:196–206.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. ↵
    1. Escobedo, F.J.,
    2. D.C. Adams, and
    3. N. Timilsina

    . 2015. Urban forest structure effects on property value. Ecosystem Services 12:209–217.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Fabbri M.

    1989. Metodi di stima del valore delle piante arboree ornamentali. Acer 2:15–19.

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Ferraris, P.

    1984. Note sulla valutaziones del soprasoulo arbóreo di parchi e giardini. Journal Flortécnica 11:11–15.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Flook, R.

    1996. A Standard Tree Evaluation Method—STEM. Journal of the New Zealand Institute of Horticulture 1:29–35.

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Grande-Ortiz,
    2. M.,
    3. M. Ayuga-Tellez, and
    4. M. Contato-Carol

    . 2012. Methods of tree appraisal: A review of their features and application possibilities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 38:130–140.

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Haase, D.,
    2. N. Larondelle,
    3. E. Andersson,
    4. M. Artmann,
    5. S. Borgström,
    6. J. Breuste, and
    7. E. Gomez-Baggethum, et al.

    2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43:413–433.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
18. ↵
    1. Harris, J.A.

    2007. Jurisdiction determines the appraisal or valuation method. Tree and Landscape appraisal. Accessed 11 November 2011. <www.landscapeeconomics.com>
19. ↵
    1. Hegedüs,
    2. A.,
    3. M. Gaál, and
    4. R. Bérces

    . 2011. Tree appraisal methods and their application first results in one Budapest’s districts. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 9:411–423.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Helliwell, R.

    2008. Amenity valuation of trees and woodlands. Arboricultural Journal 31:161–168.

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. i-Tree

    . 2012. Tools for assessing and managing forests and community trees. <www.itreetools.org/eco/index.php>
22. ↵
    1. Kirk, R.

    1995. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, third edition. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company and International Thompson Publishing Company, California, United Sates. 921 pp.
23. ↵
    1. Konijnendijk, C.,
    2. S. Syaka,
    3. T. Randrup, and
    4. L. Schipperijn

    . 2004. Urban and peri-urban forestry in the development context: Strategic and implementation. Journal of Arboriculture 30:269–276.

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Leal, L.,
    2. D. Biondi, and
    3. R. Rochadelli

    . 2008. Investment on urban trees in the city of Curitiba: An approach based on the land income theory. Scientia Forestalis 36:141–149.

    OpenUrl
25. ↵
    1. T. Arthur

    1. Moore, G.M., and
    2. T. Arthur

    . 1992. Amenity tree evaluation: A revised method. In: T. Arthur (Ed.). The Scientific Management of Plants in the Urban Environment. Proceedings of the Burnley Centenary Conference. Centre for Urban Horticulture. Melbourne, Australia. pp. 166–171.
26. ↵
    1. NCL (National Congress Library)

    . 2013. Districts Statistical and Communal Reports 2013. Accessed 22 October 2012. <www.bcn.cl>
27. ↵
    1. Neilan, C.

    2010. CAVAT. Capital asset value for amenity trees. Full Method: User’s guide. London Tree Officers Association. 11 pp.
28. ↵
    1. Östrberg,
    2. J., and
    3. J. Sjögren

    . 2016. The linear index of tree appraisal (LITA) model for economic valuation of large urban trees in Sweden. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 42:21–30.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Petersen, K., and
    2. T. Straka

    . 2011. Specialized discount cash flow analysis formulas for valuation of benefits and cost of urban trees and forest. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 37:200–206.

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Ponce-Donoso,
    2. M.,
    3. L. Moya, and
    4. O. Bustos-Letelier

    . 2009. Evaluation of formula for the appraisal of urban trees in municipalities of Chile. Scientia Forestalis 37:321–329.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Ponce-Donoso,
    2. M.,
    3. O. Vallejos-Barra, and
    4. G. Daniluk-Mosquera

    . 2012. Comparación de fórmulas chilenas e internacionales para valorar el arbolado urbano. Bosque 33:69–81.

    OpenUrl
32. ↵
    1. Ponce-Donoso,
    2. M.,
    3. O. Vallejos-Barra,
    4. G. Daniluk-Mosquera, and
    5. C. Avilés-Palacios

    . 2013. Comparison of seven Chilean Formulas for urban tree appraisal. Agrociencia 47:723–737.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Price, C.

    2003. Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban forestry. Urban Forest & Urban Greening 1:123–134.

    OpenUrl
34. ↵
    1. Randrup, T.B.

    2005. Development of Danish model for plant appraisal. Journal of Arboriculture 31:114–123.

    OpenUrl
35. ↵
    1. Roy, S.,
    2. J. Byrne,
    3. C. Pickering

    . 2012. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11:351–363.

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Sarajevs, V.

    2011. Street tree valuation systems. Forestry Commission. Research Note 8. Edinburgh, Scotland. 6 pp.
37. ↵
    1. Tyrväinen,
    2. L.

    2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management 62:75–92.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
38. ↵
    1. Tyrväinen,
    2. L.,
    3. H. Silvennoinen, and
    4. O. Kolehmainen

    . 2003. Ecological and aesthetic value in urban forest management. Urban Forest & Urban Greening 1:135–149.

    OpenUrl
39. ↵
    1. Watson, G.

    2001. A study of CTLA formula values. Journal of Arboriculture 27:289–297.

    OpenUrl
40. ↵
    1. Watson, G.

    2002. Comparing formula methods of tree appraisal. Journal of Arboriculture 28:11–18.

    OpenUrl